What alternate history ideas you wish they were used more often?

[The_Persian_Cat]

Also, Middle East was the centre of learning and a place with an overabundance of polities and wars. All of those make prophets and religions appearing easier. In fact, the last two are exactly what caused the first one. Well, dont take it as a fact, i think it's just one of the mainstream theories, but philospohy and science generally developed in places that were disunited; Ancient Greece, Classical India, Muslim World (Which by the time of the Islamic Golden Age had truly disunited) etc. Imagine you are an Athenian scholar, and you propose X theory, which the Athenian oligarchs dont like. Well, you can simply move to Sparta, or Thebes, or any of the hundreds of other city-states and find a ruler atleast willing to tolerate you. The Middle East also sat on many trade routes, which allowed for goods and ideas to be exchanged. That's why Aleppo had far more thinkers and learners than Mogadishu or Ulanbaatar.

Sometimes, you kind of can. And I'd like to see this reflected more in alternate history.
For example, once upon a time, the biggest and wealthiest city in the New World was Caracas, Venezuela -- but the city was devastated by the Latin American wars for independence, the subsequent political upheaval and civil wars, and finally the 1812 earthquake. Caracas never recovered, while places like Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, and New York grew instead.

Throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, the biggest and wealthiest city in Europe was Constantinople, and had likewise been Europe's intellectual capital. After the discovery of the Americas, however, cities like Madrid and Paris started to compete with Constantinople for wealth -- and during the Industrial Revolution, London became Europe's largest and wealthiest city, with the cultural and intellectual prestige that brings. But the privations of the 20th century (including the Great Depression, the Blitz, and suburbanisation) caused London's growth to slow, while Istanbul itself grew to once again be Europe's most populous city -- although it is not Europe's wealthiest, and it doesn't command the prestige or intellectual clout it did at the height of the Byzantine or Ottoman eras.
Istanbul's geography is well-suited to being a metropolis -- but geography isn't the only thing that contributes to city growth. Technology, changing labour relations, the global flow of trade, and other effects of human activity also affect the growth of a city. London -- the capital of a global colonial empire, and the centre of an industrial revolution -- overtook Istanbul in the 19th century, but Istanbul overtook London after Turkey experienced its own urbanisation/industrialisation, and the British Empire had largely been dismantled.

Meanwhile, quite a few cities lost their historical importance due to colonisation. Samarkand and Bukhara come to mind -- both were historic centres of Islamic scholarship and Turco-Persian culture, but their commercial importance declined with the Silk Road. Now, they aren't even the most important cities in Uzbekistan -- that position is held by Tashkent, built as a Russian military outpost, which grew in importance after the construction of the Trans-Caspian Railway.
Bengal's historic commercial hubs of Dhaka, Chittagong, and Sonargaon declined as they competed with the British city of Calcutta; the cities of Ahmedabad and Surat declined as they competed with the British port of Bombay; Malacca, Aceh, and Brunei declined as they competed with British Singapore and Dutch Batavia; etc. And these were very much due to colonial policies & restrictions on trade, as well as just the history of those cities -- e.g., the British East India Company establishing itself in Calcutta before it controlled all of Bengal, and so building its infrastructure around gathering wealth to Calcutta as it expanded. The growth of Calcutta and decline of other Bengali cities was by no means inevitable; it was contingent on the expansion of the British East India Company. Had the French conquered Bengal, its capital might be Chadernagore; had the Dutch, it might be Hooghly-Chinsurah; had it remained Mughal, it might be Dhaka or Murshidabad or Sonargaon. While Bengal is naturally suited to support a massive population, that population wouldn't be centred in Calcutta if not for the EIC.

 

[Lils <3]

There aren't nearly enough Mongol centred timelines, much less early modern and onwards Mongolia based TLs. As far as specific PoDs go there are countless. Here are some of the Points of Departure that I have 1. never seen before, 2. would make for super interesting TLs if researched properly.

Firstly, Ligden Khutugt Khan successfully reunifying the Mongols during the early 1600s. Ligden Khutugt Khan was the Khagan of the Northern Yuan from 1604 to 1634 who fought multiple successive campaigns in an attempt to reunify the Mongols. He existed between the rising Manchu threat to the east and the constant Chinese threat to the south and, because of his unpopular rule and the powers surrounding him, he failed to unify Mongolia and his son would surrender to the Manchu leading to the ongoing Chinese occupation of Inner Mongolia. Even a small level of success from Ligden Khutugt Khan would dramatically effect the Qing and China as a whole not to mention the impact it would have on the Mongols.

Secondly, alternate results from the Oirat wars of the mid to late 1600s. From 1657 there was a civil war between the Oirat especially in Dzungaria as the result of a succession dispute, in addition to the civil war, there were clashes with Russian Cossacks in Siberia, the Dzungar invasions of Khalkha and the Dzungar-Qing wars beginning. The mid to late 1600s is rife with potential alternate history completely untapped as far as I'm aware. At points the Dzungars were one of the most powerful empires of Inner Asia and yet they get no love when compared to more mainsteam European TLs.

Third up, the Pan-Mongolism era of the early 1900s. Despite its general irrelevance to modern politics and failure to ever properly manifest, Pan-Mongolism did have a golden age during the early 1900s. Due to the contributions of Buryat intellectuals from Russia, the collapse of both the Qing and Russian empires and the despotism of the far east during the Russian Civil War, there were countless points where Pan-Mongolism was an extremely important aspect of regional politics and could, under the right circumstances have succeeded. I've seen some mild interest in this topic already in the Mongolian history thread but never seen anyone put together a timeline with a Mongolia specific PoD during this era. Because of the knock on effect it would have on China and Russia, as well as because of the challenges it faced, I'd say it'd make for a pretty interesting TL.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

Third up, the Pan-Mongolism era of the early 1900s. Despite its general irrelevance to modern politics and failure to ever properly manifest, Pan-Mongolism did have a golden age during the early 1900s. Due to the contributions of Buryat intellectuals from Russia, the collapse of both the Qing and Russian empires and the despotism of the far east during the Russian Civil War, there were countless points where Pan-Mongolism was an extremely important aspect of regional politics and could, under the right circumstances have succeeded. I've seen some mild interest in this topic already in the Mongolian history thread but never seen anyone put together a timeline with a Mongolia specific PoD during this era. Because of the knock on effect it would have on China and Russia, as well as because of the challenges it faced, I'd say it'd make for a pretty interesting TL.

That is a very interesting POD! I had never heard of pan-Mongolism. I wonder how it would relate to pan-Turkism, Kemalism, and related ideologies of the time? Did these pan-Mongolists ever reach out to Turanists in Turkey, or pan-Islamists/Jadidists elsewhere? (I know that in the latter case, Mongolians aren't generally Muslim (aside from the Khoton minority), but there are related groups like Uyghurs in the region, and a lot of anti-Tsarist/Bolshevik Muslims throughout China and the Russian Empire) Did they receive any support from Japan -- an anti-Russian/Soviet power, with a supposed interest in liberating Asian peoples?

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

A interesting historical possibility; Morocco going for a soft power approach in West Africa/ Northwestern Africa, building a empire that lasts up until French colonization or even maybe past French Colonization.

 

[Lils <3]

Did these pan-Mongolists ever reach out to Turanists in Turkey, or pan-Islamists/Jadidists elsewhere?

The Pan-Mongolist movement was generally isolated, they were never in any sort of contact with any of these groups as far as I'm aware. Especially in Inner Mongolia tensions between the Muslim Chinese and Buddhist Mongols were extremely high with Muslims generally loyal to Chinese central governments. Turan wise, the Turkic peoples of Greater Mongolia were often closer aligned to regional nationalism or Pan-Mongolism than any kind of Pan-Turkism. For example, in Turkic Altai, a native government was established based around the Oirot prophecy, a prophecy inspired by an Oirat Mongol prince during the Dzungar Empire. Additionally, in the Turkic Tuva region, prominent nobles were in favour of joining the Mongolian Bogd Khan while the governor turned the region into the Russian protectorate Uriankhai Republic.
During the later days of Pan-Mongolism under the Socialist government ties to Muslims were complicated. They mostly stayed out of affairs related to Muslims as the Soviet Union had their own interests in Xinjiang. A notable exception would be the Kumul Rebellion where the Mongolian government, not under Soviet instruction, supported and backed the Kumulik Muslim forces of Yulbars Khan against the Soviet backed Xinjiang government. Funnily enough, in relation to Turkey, Kemal Kaya Effendi, a Turk exiled by Ataturk, was chief of staff to Ma Zhongying who served on the same side of the war as Yulbars Khan, he ended up captured by Soviet forces.

Did they receive any support from Japan

Much to the chagrin of the Bogd Khan's government, Japan never supported the Mongolians. Although, at times Japan backed Inner Mongolian monarchists who had some very weak ties to Pan-Mongolism. Japan generally backed the Chinese governments that didn't recognise Mongolian independence at all as they saw little gain to supporting an independent Mongolia. During the early days of the Royalist Party in China, the Japanese supported the Manchu cause as well as the Inner Mongolian noble and de facto leader of Inner Mongolia, Gungsangnorbu who had royalist ties and attempted to establish relations with the Bogd Khan government, however received no response from them.
As is more well known, the Japanese supported Prince Demchugdongrub's separatist Inner Mongolian government during the mid to late 30s who did arguably have Pan-Mongolist intentions, however, were much more concerned with autonomy or independence for Inner Mongolia.

If you're interested in the topic I'd recommend checking out the Modern Mongolian History thread, Pan-Mongolism was discussed a reasonable amount there, and there are a couple different book and paper recommendations in there if you want to learn more.